OCTOBER 9, 2015
OPINIONS
THE HILL NEWS | 3
Give Me Liberty AND Give Me Death By DANIEL BANTA STAFF WRITER
Americans love their guns. We have more guns than any other nation on Earth. More specifically, we have more guns per capita than Yemen, which is not only the second most armed nation, but also a wartorn country in the midst of a civil war. We call it freedom. Yet this freedom has the pesky knack of killing us. The mass shooting in Oregon last week is just another painful reminder about the cost of our love of guns. As usual, following such actions, America wearily resumed the conversation about how to stop this trend of mass shootings and gun violence. On one side, people say: “Maybe reducing the amount of guns could save lives.”, others, however, point to the Second Amendment wondering “Why should the actions of one mentally unhinged person result in me losing my guns?” The much-needed national dialogue then devolves along partisan lines. That is, until the next mass shooting
occurs. Then we repeat. And repeat. But behind the rhetoric are certain facts that Americans need to reckon with. The Second Amendment does not clearly grant you the right to own as many guns as you want. When asked what is granted in the Second Amendment, people immediately parrot, “the right to bear arms.” However, the amendment actually reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Two points are immediately obvious. Firstly, it is ambiguous as to whether we have the right to bear arms only within a militia or in addition to a militia. The amendment, written in 1791 is fairly outdated. The nature of arms has changed drastically in the past 224 years. Then, guns were less accurate: perhaps, with the best gun at the time, you could shoot two or three bullets a minute. Now, we have guns that can shoot that many times a second. Thus, when those words were
penned, it is inconceivable that James Madison was granting you the right to an AR-15. Nonetheless, people believe their right to guns is an innate freedom that should not be trampled upon. If America’s failure to enact stringent gun regulations really arises from our love for freedom, where is the backlash when other rights are restricted? The First Amendment is limited to a degree. Beyond that, in our quest to combat terrorism, the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Amendments have been ignored, reduced, or blatantly violated. If safety justifies limiting our freedom, surely intelligent gun regulation meets that criteria. As Obama sadly pointed out, guns kill more people in the U.S. than terrorists. But terrorists do not have a multi-billion dollar industry and teams of lobbyists working on their behest, and thus, our government is actually willing to legislate against them. Behind the rhetoric of freedom and rights, there exists the National Rifle Association. Travel to their website and splashed across the
Dear Dub: What are the Facts on Planned Parenthood? By KRISTEN JOVANELLY STAFF WRITER Politics make me feel duped. I’m like Charlie Brown, itching to kick that football just to have Lucy pull it away from me at that last second. I find myself falling into the traps of political diversions, being pinged and ponged back and forth between unsubstantiated claims, edifying dialogue, and long-standing bias. My head hurts, and in all honesty, I usually end up reading some article about which celebrities are supporting which candidates this political season, and a picture of Meryl Streep embracing Hillary Clinton leaves me feeling warm and contented, but still very much confused. So, let’s get the facts. Let’s talk about Planned Parenthood as, currently, it is one of the most popular organizations in America. Why? It is likely that Planned Parenthood has taken on the unfortunate role of surrogate of our country’s partisan differences. The polarizing nature of the organization enables politicians to enflame emotions, splitting voters and tempting independents to break favorably or unfavorably based on assigned moral principles that are, somehow, characteristic of a political party. The latest reprimand of Planned Parenthood was a consequence of the release of a questioned series of videos purporting to show the organization selling fetal body parts. However, this Dear Dub article isn’t a journalistic
debunking pursuit. This article is about what we know. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health services in the United States, providing services to 2.7 million patients in 2013 alone. Of its patients, 83% were age 20 or older according to GAO data from 2010 to 2012. During the 2014 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood affiliates around the country received $528.4 million in government funds according to the organization’s own annual report and the IRS. Federal dollars were the largest source of money coming into the organization and its local affiliates by quite a margin. $305.3 million was derived from nongovernment sources, while about $257.4 million reached the organization after private donors and foundations made contributions and bequests. The organization also raised another $54.7 million in fees charged for its services. Since the Hyde Amendment of 1976, federal dollars have not been used to provide abortions. Instead, the organization uses money from private donors and foundations to fund abortion services, which account for 3% of its total services. The largest percentage of services Planned Parenthood provides is for sexually transmitted disease screening and testing, accounting for 41% of efforts. Contraception follows,
as 34% of services provided. According to the organization, and subsequently fact checked by the GAO and the Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood also provides sex education, reversible contraception, emergency contraception kits, vasectomies, female sterilization procedures, and pregnancy tests. Harsh political discourse targeting Planned Parenthood continues to polarize the American populous, shifting the emphasis of the organization away from its actual services and morphing it into a political representation of opposition. Even anti-choice misogyny, particularly to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards in front of a largely-male House government oversight committee last week, is perceived by some progressives as a way to bolster Planned Parenthood. But that’s all headlines. These setbacks seriously hinder access to necessary health services, especially for the nearly 80% of patients that, according to the organization, had incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. At the end of the day, there’s no scoreboard when it comes to women’s reproductive rights. Legislation and political debate can radically alter people’s lives by stripping away resources that have been engrained into our country since the first birth control clinic was set up in Brooklyn, NY in 1916. Defend your rights, stand with Planned Parenthood.
screen are images of: “the future of freedom,” and “tireless defenders of your Second Amendment rights.” Yet, behind these familiar tropes is the disturbing reality that the NRA is a multi-billion dollar organization with the goal of stopping any gun restrictions. Is that American? The founding fathers resented monied interests and large corporations steering the political discourse. The NRA exerts its financial clout in elections by donating to campaigns, financing attack ads on competing candidates, and rallying the conservative base
after mass shootings. As a result, nothing can be done to adequately address the issue. Nothing will change. In a month, maybe two, history will repeat and the dialogue resumed. If the Sandy Hook shooting was not the catalyst of change, nothing will. The cryptic wording of an amendment composed 224 years ago by a handful of white slave-owning males and a modern billion-dollar lobbyist group stymie any change, no matter how modest. We will keep our guns but also all the cold dead hands that come with it.
PHOTO COURTESY OF ECONWATSON
In this article, Daniel Banta takes a slightly different approach to the age-old problem of guns.
What are You Doing in My Waters? By MATTHEW THIBAULT STAFF WRITER Growing up as a local resident, the St. Lawrence River was always a focal point of the area. It serves as a global link that connects us with the rest of the world by allowing the transportation of massive cargo ships and boats from overseas. It's a premier fishing spot, with Waddington being the site of some major competitions over the summer. These competitions are international, receiving ESPN coverage and prominent sponsorship. Additionally, the scenery is beautiful, featuring campgrounds on the river, such as Coles Creek and Barnhardt. However, St. Lawrence Seaway focal points could be grossly affected soon. The city of Montreal, Quebec plans to release about eight billion liters of raw, untreated sewage right into the St. Lawrence River. This disgusting attempt to use an international gateway as a dump-off site was originally scheduled for earlier in the year, but the measure was halted because Montreal citizens heavily opposed the measure. Citizens exerted enough pressure that the Mayor was forced to hit the brakes on the move altogether until deliberations were made. However, in the end, the plan proceeded regardless. Ultimately, the city is flooding the wastewater into the river because of a construction project related to a major highway. According to the city, it would cost about one billion dollars to build a temporary storage area to house the waste. So, instead,
they're going to just dump billions of liters of raw sewage into the river and hope there will be few negative repercussions. Unfortunately, this is something that could come back to haunt us. The sewage may affect the ecosystem that live near and within the river, as well as animals that live further out along the Canadian side of the river. Additionally, it could hurt the economy of both the city of Montreal and some towns along the river. Eventually, this shortsighted measure may cause enough problems that the government may need to launch an initiative to clean up the river. This controversial decision may have negative implications on tourism. After all, who would be eager to fish, swim, or do pretty much anything in a river that just had about a billion liters of raw sewage dumped into it? As for the consideration of the environment, I think it's appalling, especially because of how much we know about the harmful effects of raw sewage on ecosystems. In this day and age, there is an undue emphasis on environmental concerns such as global warming, melting ice caps, and deforestation. With that said, I'm surprised that this didn't elicit more resistance. This is especially surprising considering how important the river is to the economy of this area. It gives us hydroelectric power, shipping routes, fishing spots, boating areas, camps, and so much more. Since we derive so much form the St. Lawrence River, the least we could do is respect the ecosystem and the surrounding area.